Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

That's correct. Peter commands that the Jews repent and be baptized just as Jesus commissioned him and the other disciples to do. Jesus told them to make disciples baptizing them.... Would Jesus have commanded His disciples to baptize with the Holy Spirit? No, of course He wouldn't. No one but Jesus could or can baptize with the Spirit. Peter commanded water baptism. His listeners would have understood that. The language is not figurative in this passage.

But is it possible you are comparing apples with oranges? (Let me know if I should explain what I mean.)

 

[katiemygirl]

How do you know Jesus' words at the Last Supper are symbolic?

I don't believe that you believe Jesus literally meant to eat His body and drink His blood Mr. So- Crats.

 

[Spockrates]

Or, just read all of John chapter 6 as a whole.
Looking at the verse in context, Jesus gives the people food to fill their stomachs.
Many people follow Jesus for an eternal 'free lunch'.
Jesus tells them ... forget about the physical bread and look at God!
God has sent me ... not about what I can give you (like a free meal) ... about what I am going to do (soon) ... about my flesh (deeds) and blood (covenant/words/teaching).
My spiritual food will bring you far more life than any mere physical food ever could ... come and get FOOD FOR YOUR SOUL!
In John 6:68-69 Peter gets it ... “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Within the full context of Chapter 6, cannibalism makes no sense, a mystical literal transformation of the elements make no sense (for John 6:54), but a figurative interpretation of Jesus flesh and blood as his works and message does make sense.

I have taken communion at a Catholic Church.
I have eaten the wafer.
It did not taste like human flesh (although I am not sure exactly what human flesh tastes like), it just tasted like a flat dry cracker with no salt.
So I have a very high confidence that whatever is going on at a modern communion, it is not a literal, physical transmutation of one physical substance into another physical substance.

I didn't study Catholic Doctrine that closely, but I am pretty sure this is covered in any catechism.
So I wonder if you really have no answers, or if you just like prodding people to see their answers.

Well, to be fair to Catholics, they do not believe consuming the Eucharist is cannibalism, and they say the Eucharist is all of Christ--body, soul and divinity. But please tell me why you think Catholics are cannibles, or why if what they believe is true, they must be cannibles.

 

[katiemygirl]

But is it possible you are comparing apples with oranges? (Let me know if I should explain what I mean.)

Common sense tells me the language of John 6 is metaphorical, teaching a much deeper and greater message. I don't believe for a second that you read the chapter literally, unless you went from being a calvinist to a Roman Catholic.

 

[Spockrates]

I don't believe that you believe Jesus literally meant to eat His body and drink His blood Mr. So- Crats.

LOL! I'm not sure what to believe. I am fascinated that many millions of Catholics do believe it. Aren't you?

 

[katiemygirl]

Well, to be fair to Catholics, they do not believe consuming the Eucharist is cannibalism, and they say the Eucharist is all of Christ--body, soul and divinity. But please tell me why you think Catholics are cannibles, or why if what they believe is true, they must be cannibles.

The greater wrong is that they believe "the priest," a mere man has the power to change the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. Really?

 

[katiemygirl]

LOL! I'm not sure what to believe. I am fascinated that many millions of Catholics do believe it. Aren't you?

No, not at all. I was raised on their lies. I won't be fooled again.

 

[Spockrates]

Common sense tells me the language of John 6 is metaphorical, teaching a much deeper and greater message. I don't believe for a second that you read the chapter literally, unless you went from being a calvinist to a Roman Catholic.

Actually, I went from being Catholic as a kid, to being Baptist as a teen, to being Calvinist as an adult, to being a non-denominational Evangelical. Now I'm pretty much considering all of my options.

But tell me, do you belong to the Church of Christ, or perhaps the Church of God. I think one of the two has beliefs about baptism similar to your own.

 

[Spockrates]

The greater wrong is that they believe "the priest," a mere man has the power to change the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. Really?

Actually, they believe only God has that power, but he chooses to use the priest. Think of it like a spiritual gift. Gifts of the spirit are powers we do not have ourselves, but are given to us by God. Or should I say as Baptists used to tell me, "Gifts of the spirit were powers given by God"? For they explained such powers ceased with the closing of the cannon of scripture.

 

[katiemygirl]

Actually, I went from being Catholic as a kid, to being Baptist as a teen, to being Calvinist as an adult, to being a non-denominational Evangelical. Now I'm pretty much considering all of my options.

But tell me, do you belong to the Church of Christ, or perhaps the Church of God. I think one of the two has beliefs about baptism similar to your own.

I belong to the Lord's church. I worship with a very small group of christians here in the sunshine state. My husband and I originally began worshiping in our home back in CT, but the group got too big, so we purchased an old Congregational church building. That was 37 years ago. We've been worshiping with a small group here the past few years, and we like it very much. God has richly blessed us. We take the Lord's Supper each first day of the week, and we do baptize for the remission of sins. We do our best to let the Scriptures guide us. We are non denominational.

 

[katiemygirl]

Actually, they believe only God has that power, but he chooses to use the priest. Think of it like a spiritual gift. Gifts of the spirit are powers we do not have ourselves, but are given to us by God. Or should I say as Baptists used to tell me, "Gifts of the spirit were powers given by God"? For they explained such powers ceased with the closing of the cannon of scripture.

There is no Scriptural support for what they believe about having a physical priesthood today. NONE! All christians are the spiritual priesthood of believers.

Matter of fact, there isn't Scriptural support for much of what they teach. Lots of Scripture twisting and tons of tradition.

 

[atpollard]

How do you know Jesus' words at the Last Supper are symbolic?

Matthew 26:28 Jesus says "This is my blood ..." and in Matthew 26:29 Jesus says "I will not drink from this fruit of the vine ...".

So either his words are symbolic or Jesus grew on a vine and was literally eaten.
So which is it, a Crucified Savior or a Canibalized Savior eaten by those he loves ?

 

[atpollard]

Is human sacrifice also condemned in the Old Testament?

Yes.
Remember when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Issaic?
God sent an angel to stop the sacrifice and a ram to take the place.
The whole concept of the temple sacrifice is that an animal dies so that a man (or woman) can be forgiven.

Remember the worship of Baal?
God abhorred the sacrifice of children.
The land where they offered the sacrifice to Baal became a cursed land ... a burning garbage heap that became synonymous with the place where evil men were sent at death ... thrown out and burned with the trash.

I think that God is pretty anti-human sacrifice in the OT ... but you can ask in the Judiaism DIR section for a second opinion.

 

[atpollard]

Well, to be fair to Catholics, they do not believe consuming the Eucharist is cannibalism, and they say the Eucharist is all of Christ--body, soul and divinity. But please tell me why you think Catholics are cannibles, or why if what they believe is true, they must be cannibles.

LOL ... Try again.
I am not tilting at that strawman.
YOU said they were eating something that actually became a human body.
Look up the definition of cannibalism.

 

[katiemygirl]

Matthew 26:28 Jesus says "This is my blood ..." and in Matthew 26:29 Jesus says "I will not drink from this fruit of the vine ...".

So either his words are symbolic or Jesus grew on a vine and was literally eaten.
So which is it, a Crucified Savior or a Canibalized Savior eaten by those he loves ?

This is an excellent point. Jesus says "this is my blood," and then calls it "fruit of the vine."

I can't find any evidence of the blood of Jesus being changed to the fruit of the vine, or vice versa, anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Spockrates]

I belong to the Lord's church. I worship with a very small group of christians here in the sunshine state. My husband and I originally began worshiping in our home back in CT, but the group got too big, so we purchased an old Congregational church building. That was 37 years ago. We've been worshiping with a small group here the past few years, and we like it very much. God has richly blessed us. We take the Lord's Supper each first day of the week, and we do baptize for the remission of sins. We do our best to let the Scriptures guide us. We are non denominational.

When I was in the military stationed in Italy, I worshipped and attended Bible studies in people's homes. I enjoyed the experience.

 

[Spockrates]

There is no Scriptural support for what they believe about having a physical priesthood today. NONE! All christians are the spiritual priesthood of believers.

Matter of fact, there isn't Scriptural support for much of what they teach. Lots of Scripture twisting and tons of tradition.

Perhaps you are correct. But how will I know if you don't fully explain why you believe this? I mean, it's easy to throw mud and accuse a group of misunderstanding scripture. It's another thing to thoughtfully, respectfully and patiently prove it.

I've had long conversations with Catholics who took the time to speak the truth in love. They reasoned with me, rather than trying to prove me wrong, even though my only goal was to prove them wrong. Through their reasoning, I found myself proving myself wrong!

But just as important as their reasons why they believed was their attitude tword me. It showed the sincerity of their beliefs. While I cared only about winning arguments, they cared about winning me over. They looked at me as a sheep lost and a soul to be saved, rather than a foe found and an antagonist to be vanquished. They did not give up in their determination to love me.

Now I'm not Catholic, and I'm not saying all Catholics treated me this way. However for those who did, I do not doubt their sincerity. It's possible they were sincere, yet sincerely wrong, but that sincerity spoke louder than words to me and causes me to doubt that they were in error. Perhaps it was evidence God was with them?

 

[Spockrates]

No, not at all. I was raised on their lies. I won't be fooled again.

Please give me an example of such a lie.

 

[katiemygirl]

Please give me an example of such a lie.

How about you give me an example of a POPE from the Scriptures? You see, I can't accept anything as truth unless there is Scriptural support. And while you're at it, maybe you could find verses showing how Mary remained a virgin and sinless her entire life?

 

[katiemygirl]

Perhaps you are correct. But how will I know if you don't fully explain why you believe this? I mean, it's easy to throw mud and accuse a group of misunderstanding scripture. It's another thing to thoughtfully, respectfully and patiently prove it.

I've had long conversations with Catholics who took the time to speak the truth in love. They reasoned with me, rather than trying to prove me wrong, even though my only goal was to prove them wrong. Through their reasoning, I found myself proving myself wrong!

But just as important as their reasons why they believed was their attitude tword me. It showed the sincerity of their beliefs. While I cared only about winning arguments, they cared about winning me over. They looked at me as a sheep lost and a soul to be saved, rather than a foe found and an antagonist to be vanquished. They did not give up in their determination to love me.

Now I'm not Catholic, and I'm not saying all Catholics treated me this way. However for those who did, I do not doubt their sincerity. It's possible they were sincere, yet sincerely wrong, but that sincerity spoke louder than words to me and causes me to doubt that they were in error. Perhaps it was evidence God was with them?

I've never doubted their sincerity, but I have studied their doctrine in depth, and there is zero Scriptural support for much of it. They are more about tradition. They give more credence to it than the actual word of God. I'm all about the Scriptures and nothing but. I have had many discussions with catholics about this, including my own family. Remember, I was one once. They insist on holding to their traditions. I insist on God's word alone.